Stockton Basic Income Program Extended. Is Support For the Idea Growing? (newyorker.com) 110
A $500-a-month basic-income program in Stockton, California will be extended through 2021 "in response to the economic strain put on participants by the coronavirus pandemic," reports the New Yorker:
While the idea of extending the program had been under discussion even before the spread of COVID-19, Stockton's mayor, Michael Tubbs told me that current conditions made doing so a "moral imperative," as many participants have lost work, and those classified as essential workers face increased risk. "COVID-19 has put the focus on the fact that a lot of Americans live in constant moments of economic disruption, because the fundamentals of the economy haven't been working," he told me.... Tubbs first encountered the concept of a universal basic income, or U.B.I., while he was an undergraduate at Stanford, in 2009, in a course that covered Martin Luther King, Jr.,'s advocacy for the idea late in his life... Tubbs told me that he doesn't see a basic income as particularly radical but, instead, as "this generation's extension of the safety net," following in the path of things like Social Security, child-labor laws, weekends, and collective bargaining...
[D]uring the pandemic, the percentage of money that participants spent on food, consistently the largest category, reached nearly twenty-five per cent over the monthly average, while the amount spent on recreation dropped to less than two per cent. Participants have also put the money toward rent, car payments, and paying off debt, as well as one-off expenses for themselves or their children: dental surgery, a prom dress, football camp, and shoes. They've also been able to cut back on working second and third jobs; one participant, a forty-eight-year-old mother of two who works full time at Tesla, was able to stop working as a delivery driver for DoorDash. Alcohol and tobacco have accounted for less than one per cent of spending per month...
Jennifer Burns, a history professor at Stanford University, told me that the bipartisan support for [America's] Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act marked a significant shift in thinking about cash transfers... Recent calls for U.B.I. have mostly come from Silicon Valley, where libertarian-leaning entrepreneurs embraced the concept as a quick fix for job losses due to increased automation. According to Burns, the current crisis has shifted the focus away from hypothetical disasters toward inequities that already exist. In her view, the automation argument is primarily a distraction, but "if worrying about A.I. helps people look around and think about what's already under way, that's good."
Stockton's goal "was always to promote the adoption of basic-income programs on a state or federal level," according to the article, and they're now being "flooded with requests for advice from pilot programs in development in other cities, including Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Newark, Nashville, and New Orleans."
Mayor Tubbs tells them its prospects as a federal program depend mostly on political will — since "This country has a history of finding ways to pay for things that we say matter."
[D]uring the pandemic, the percentage of money that participants spent on food, consistently the largest category, reached nearly twenty-five per cent over the monthly average, while the amount spent on recreation dropped to less than two per cent. Participants have also put the money toward rent, car payments, and paying off debt, as well as one-off expenses for themselves or their children: dental surgery, a prom dress, football camp, and shoes. They've also been able to cut back on working second and third jobs; one participant, a forty-eight-year-old mother of two who works full time at Tesla, was able to stop working as a delivery driver for DoorDash. Alcohol and tobacco have accounted for less than one per cent of spending per month...
Jennifer Burns, a history professor at Stanford University, told me that the bipartisan support for [America's] Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act marked a significant shift in thinking about cash transfers... Recent calls for U.B.I. have mostly come from Silicon Valley, where libertarian-leaning entrepreneurs embraced the concept as a quick fix for job losses due to increased automation. According to Burns, the current crisis has shifted the focus away from hypothetical disasters toward inequities that already exist. In her view, the automation argument is primarily a distraction, but "if worrying about A.I. helps people look around and think about what's already under way, that's good."
Stockton's goal "was always to promote the adoption of basic-income programs on a state or federal level," according to the article, and they're now being "flooded with requests for advice from pilot programs in development in other cities, including Seattle, Portland, Chicago, Newark, Nashville, and New Orleans."
Mayor Tubbs tells them its prospects as a federal program depend mostly on political will — since "This country has a history of finding ways to pay for things that we say matter."
Re: (Score:2)
There's clear evidence that we could raise the living standard of the poor and middle class
What makes you think standards of living can rise faster than they currently are?
..and no, you dont get to fall back to "wealth gap" incoherence, because you just hit the nail on the head that the only thing that matters is peoples standard of living.
Re: (Score:1)
Because wages have been flat
Wages arent standard of living.
Also, person who decries the existence of something that's trivial to show should probably not call it incoherent.
It is not that there is a wealth gap that is incoherent. Its the logic you use trying to make it out to be a problem thats incoherent.
Those people making $25K/year but have a savings, are wealthier than the people that make $200k/year but are irresponsible shits. Thats a wealth gap. Its not a bad one. Wealth gaps arent by default bad, and pointing at how wide the gap is in some instances does not by itself make those gaps bad either; but you think thats all it takes. Its i
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so simple when you've had everything handed to you on a plate and you aren't aware of the barriers to social mobility.
1 - sounds simple - work hard at school, graduate. Reality is that many poor children end up doing a lot of home help work because the family is out trying to earn whatever they can. They sacrifice their learning for this, and they fall behind. Once behind, it's very difficult to catch up - middle class families hire a tutor when this happens.
2 - the old right wing 'poor are feckless' ar
Re: (Score:3)
3 is an excellent idea. Do you have a full time job for someone with no relevant job experience that doesn't include the catch phrase "do you want fries with that?"
The reason I'm asking is that in this economy, even people with relevant job experience have a hard time finding full time employment. Lemme guess: You're 40+ years old and started working in a time when it was actually possible to get a full time job without any job experience, just with a high school diploma in hand, am I right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No need to sympathize with me, I was lucky enough that my entry to the job market fell together with the dot.com boom when landing a well paying job in IT required basically that you didn't think TCP is the Chinese secret service. I was lucky.
The people right now are not.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a good IT job when I was a highschool drop out and in a non tech town. I was admittedly fired because I didn't really understand work and wasn't well socialized yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just throw money at the problem, that'll fix everything!
No, it won't. Fix the actual problem. Use a guillotine if you must. But just throwing money at people won't solve anything. It won't raise anyones standard of living. It's giving someone a fish instead of teaching them how to fish. Literally.
Re: (Score:1)
Fix the actual problem. Use a guillotine if you must. But just throwing money at people won't solve anything. It won't raise anyones standard of living.
Why not? Has it ever been tried, properly, large scale, for a long enough timespan to draw a conclusion? And even if one could provide examples, what works or doesn't work in one set of circumstances, may work very different in other places or circumstances.
Virtually without exception, "money" equals fiat currency [wikipedia.org]. Which IS created from thin air. Suppose $10M is created, in a country with 1M citizens. Such that when distributed equally, every citizen would receive $10. But instead, $10M is adde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using your logic, why not make it a billion dollars to everyone's account? Then the problem become obvious.
It's like adding DC to a signal.
Re: (Score:2)
Using your logic, why not make it a billion dollars to everyone's account? Then the problem become obvious.
Drinking a billion pints of water is lethal. Therefore, one should not drink one pint? Could be there's a flaw in this kind of reasoning.
It's like adding DC to a signal.
Adding DC doesn't add information, but it does add power. Where were you going with this analogy?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's a bit like having a bunch of people sitting at a bar with some having a full glass and some having an empty glass and you coming along and filling everyone's glass. Some glasses will over flow, some will just fill but at the end, everyone will have the same amount of drink in front of them.
All pumping money into the economy does, essentially, is making the amount of money someone has irrelevant. In other words, unless you're rich, you win.
Re: (Score:2)
> What if that $10 were added to each citizens' bank account instead
Inflation?
Re: (Score:2)
No. A playfield leveling. Nothing else.
Inflation would entail that imports become more expensive. That's not the case since the economy stays as it was, instead of selling for X dollars, you now sell for X*100 dollars, while earning X*100 dollars instead of X dollars.
What DOES change, though, is the value of the money you have in your bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [youtube.com]'s your anthem.
Re: (Score:2)
So everybody will be paying their own paycheck.
Re: With such an extreme wealth gap (Score:2)
Re: Not growing (Score:2)
It really isnt naive. Just saw chamber of commerce head on cspan praising the *job creators*, the mantra is give people something to do. But our low skill jobs are worthless and could be automated, why praise job creation? Not really a Marxist, but the overall narrative of capitalism being a bridge to a different system where many people dont need to work seems correct.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Not growing (Score:2)
You will never know whats out there, so long as the political will is to *create jobs* however pointless and those ethical engineers who could deliver next level automation solutions know they would be putting millions of families on the street by acting. See what happens when those families are secure either way, and those engineers will be hailed as heros by all, when they design with the complete support of all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm getting sick of hearing this utter bullshit about 'everyones jobs becoming automated
You arent also sick of people saying that, and I quote that fucker, "But our low skill jobs are worthless and could be automated"
Worthless, eh? The supporters of this shit not only dont know economics, they dont even know what the word 'worthless' means.
If those jobs are worthless, then nobody would pay anyone to do it, and nobody would design machinery to do it either. Therefore, those jobs have value, to both the employer and the employee.
These UBI supporting fucks think themselves above everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald's isnt going to turn themselves into a vending machine chain, by any other name.
Keep deluding yourself. McDonald's would do just that. In an instant. Provided a) they could. b) it would be profitable. And c) it wouldn't turn away their customers, that is: if customers would be okay with it & keep eating their burgers at McDonald's.
Same for practically every retail business or restaurant chain out there. We're not there (yet) because when it comes to jobs in the real world (vs. accounting-style jobs that are basically complex math), current AI is still clumsy by human standards.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact of the matter is, you don't need any fancy economics degrees or
Re: (Score:2)
Naysayers.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see the value in a basic income being the same as the buffer rich people have. They can take a breather from life if shit goes sideways, collect themselves, and move on. Working class people don't have the savings to do that. We have a pandemic right now. If everyone had some real savings--or a buffer like basic income--we could probably have just waited it out. We have such extreme wealth available, but only in theory, because it's hoarded by a tiny, tiny fraction of the population who have a religious f
Re:Naysayers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If everyone had some real savings--or a buffer like basic income--we could probably have just waited it out.
Heres the thing. There are people that make $25K a year and have savings and investments. There are people that make $200K a year and are in debt up to their eyeballs.
The people "that need the most help" are the people that live as high-on-the-hog as their means allows. They have a higher standard of living than the average person within their own income bracket.
Now, we propose to give these people with higher than average standards of living, living as high-on-the-hog as possible, more, and we propose doing so by taking money from people with a less than average standard of living who responsibly do not live as high-on-the-hog as possible.
How about you fucks with these ideas use your fucking brains.
Re: (Score:2)
UBI will help some bad people. And lots of good people.
Conservative: Kill everyone to avoid helping a single bad person.
Liberalism: Help everyone, even if they might not be a good perso
Re: (Score:1)
There are almost no people with $25k in income with appreciable savings and investments. 2/3 off the top goes to rent.
You just proved what a fucking ignorant and myopic fuck you are.
You in California? That would explain it. You fucks have no idea what the rest of the country is like. You just imagined that the entire fucking country pays at least $1387/mo in rent.
Thats your ignorant and myopic imagination. I pay rather high rent in my area, and its UNDER FUCKING $800/mo
You are wrong, because you are ignorant, and you are ignorant, because you are myopic.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Absolutely right. At 25k, you aren't saving if you are buying expensive cell phones, nice TVs, services like Netflix, the best internet speeds for gaming, and any other creature comforts. Those are supposed to be incentives to try and build a career or to make more money. You can still save at 25k, but people would rather live above their means no matter what they make.
Re: (Score:2)
Cell phone is not a luxury these days, nor is internet. You need those to get a job. Then there's other wxpenses like clothes (Most employers frown at nudity in the workplace).
Re: (Score:1)
A $600+ cell phone with an unlimited data plan, and a 50+mbps internet connection is most definitely a luxury. There are budget phones and very cheap internet connections, but low-income people are not buying those. They're buying expensive phones that are above their income level and then they're paying for them through high-priced service contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh - I just figured it meant you only played Big Slick from under the gun.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative: Kill everyone to avoid helping a single bad person.
Liberalism: Help everyone, even if they might not be a good person.
Yeah man just a few days ago I had a friendly debate with a Republican leaning coworker and it pretty much came down to this. He freely acknowledges that he just cannot stomach the idea that some small percentage of people might game the system and "sit on their asses all day and take his money." Funnily he's even of the mind that if we could create some perfect system to prevent that, he'd be just fine going "full communist" as he says.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing is there are already plenty of people sitting on their asses all day taking his money. They have a lot more money than he has.
Re: (Score:1)
LOL I said nearly the same thing and also "well we've already got socialism, do you want socialism that benefits the rich or socialism that benefits the poor?"
Re:Naysayers.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"The people "that need the most help" are the people that live as high-on-the-hog as their means allows. They have a higher standard of living than the average person within their own income bracket."
No, the people who need the most help are the people who did the right thing, saved up, had a stroke of bad luck eat those savings, and then a second dose of bad luck shat on them while they were already staggering and knocked them on their arse.
Which happens a damn sight more than people tend to think, because they don't really comprehend statistics or large populations.
"Now, we propose to give these people with higher than average standards of living, living as high-on-the-hog as possible, more, and we propose doing so by taking money from people with a less than average standard of living who responsibly do not live as high-on-the-hog as possible."
No, UBI is so all the poor sods with fuck-all discretionary income to put into savings, and/or anyone who gets shat on before they can recover from the last time they got shat on, have a better buffer between them and getting long-term fucked in the wallet - something that is inevitable on a national scale and a problem which can and does snowball into dragging down others. The current mess of social security systems are both shit at dealing with this and easily manipulated by lobbyists who want to shove their snouts into the trough.
We need something better. "But wah someone'll rort it" is a pathetic appeal to status quo when the status quo is already being rorted, and rorted hard.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I got curious, and US News [usnews.com] at least seems to agree with GP on Stockton's diversity.
To rebut the idea that this diversity leads to crime though, note that San Jose is also on the list. It was probably quite diverse 10 years ago when it had a very low crime rate--one of the lowest crime rates for a city that size. The crime has since gone up. Why? Because the Mayor tried to reduce police officer pay. For several years there was a kind of "blue flu" as police officers were difficult to hire and retain. T
Re: (Score:1)
Racist bollocks. Crime has been strongly correlated to poverty and lead poisoning. Who is poor because of historic oppression? Who is poisoned because they were shunted into substandard housing, in areas with poor infrastructure?
Blacks, yes, but not because they are Black. It's because they were put in that position. Parent's comment is like asking the victim "why are you hitting yourself?".
Parent's attitude reinforces the problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Stockton has the highest crime rate of a city of its size in the US.
Citations needed.
Sons of Anarchy
Re: (Score:2)
Basic income doesn't keep all people from working, just a large number of them.
And Stockton isn't giving this money to everyone that lives in Stockton, and they aren't funding it with money collected only from people in Stockton. So whatever the results of the test, it doesn't actually test the viability of UBI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point in discussing it is that some people fall for the hype, even if it is a bad test.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"it doesn't actually test the viability of UBI"
I figured that out as soon as I saw the "less than 1% spent on alcohol and tobacco". So no carton a day smokers in the study group? No broken down alcoholics living on the street? All fine upstanding citizens carefully screened beforehand to put the best spin possible on this little experiment.
So tell me again how this has anything to do with UBI (emphasis on the U)?
Sad that it's come to this. (Score:4, Insightful)
UBI is a good idea but it's only really come about out of necessity. If the labors of the member of our society been rewarded properly then this kind of thing would be outlandish. However, with 90% of the wealth in the nation belonging to 1% of the population, here we are. UBI comes as a result of a failing economic system, not a successful one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dependency is a wretched condition.
That's hilarious coming from someone like you. If you aren't living in the woods alone and hunting game then you are deeply dependent on the rest of society which includes a large number of government services which are vital to our survival.
I wish you could understand the absurdity your statement. Cooperation is a large part of what has made humans more than mere beasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Dependency is a wretched condition.
That's hilarious coming from someone like you. If you aren't living in the woods alone and hunting game then you are deeply dependent on the rest of society which includes a large number of government services which are vital to our survival.
I wish you could understand the absurdity your statement. Cooperation is a large part of what has made humans more than mere beasts.
Yes, we are deeply dependant on the rest of society...who are actually performing vital services and being compensated accordingly.
That's how this whole thing works. You start giving people free money, you undermine the whole thing. "The Whole Thing(tm)" being the single most successful system for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to succeed...ever. Like in the history of humanity "ever".
Seems like a bad idea to me, but this year has been full of those. Guess it's time we learn some painfu
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trading with others on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis has nothing to do with capitalism
FTFY. The best way to win that game is to fuck everyone else over by leveraging economic power to make giving you money as involuntary as possible while giving them as little benefit as possible. That's why you see so much rent seeking.
That was almost clever! Good for you, leftard!
Brilliant argument, great insight. That should be the foreword in your book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trading with others on a voluntary and mutually beneficial basis has nothing to do with living on the dole, and you know it full well.
It's also not what I'm talking about. Streets, police, fire departments, schools, water treatment plants and many other things are all paid for by taxes. Society benefits from these things.
Also, when things go bad (like huge economic downturn during a pandemic) then you need to provide people with the necessities for living. UBI provides this but strips out the complexity distribution.
Look around any inner city where multi-generational public relief is the norm.
Much of that as actually are result of the current system that is not paying people properly. It's my opinion that if yo
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it you're living off the land and don't engage in any kind of economic interaction with anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, a UBI could lower overall productivity (people on a UBI are less inclined to work, so generate less product
Re: (Score:2)
And IMHO the biggest culprit there is the availability and proclivity of regular people to take out loans to buy things. Primarily housing, where you're bidding against other people on the price of a house.....If you borrow $100k @ 4% interest on a 30 year mortgage, by the time you've paid it off you've paid $72k in interest to the 1%.
Your math doesn't reflect reality, and is simplified to the point of being useless.
First that $100k in property is probably worth $200k by the end of that 30 year period. Property ownership is the fastest way to grow wealth for most people. And it's a way to build generational wealth, because once it's paid off the property or its value can be passed down to your children.
Second, over that 30 year period you would have been renting if you weren't buying. And you'd have been paying that $72k in interest to t
Re: (Score:2)
I see this as the most important question about UBI. It's not about whether 'undeserving' people get 'free' money, or whether some people waste it. It's about whether or not it has a
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who make 200K and live paycheck to paycheck, and I know people living on 40K who have savings. It's not really a problem of the amount of income, but rather, whether the expenses are less than income. Many people at many levels of income fail to understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything going to the top is natural, it's called a feedback.
We need some amount of feedback because "smarter" people will make better decisions with their resources that will typically benefit others more than less smart people.
There are plenty of people that got rich not from intellect but rather fortuitous circumstance. It has been studied and there is no correlation between intellect and wealth.
"Is support for the idea growing?" (Score:2)
Re: "Is support for the idea growing?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
blah blah blah WORDS
Same shit, different day. Heard it all before. None of it matters. Stupid idea, stupid people. Blah, blah, blah.
Re: (Score:2)
Same shit, different day. Heard it all before. None of it matters. Stupid idea, stupid people. Blah, blah, blah.
Indeed. These damn libruls pushing universal school education have no freaking idea about economics. They think that paying for people to learn to read and write will somehow make farmers more effective and won't result in a bunch of extra taxes on my hard-earned money. Now, where's my slave whip?
Re: (Score:2)
Face reality: You're going to have to WORK FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Get over it. No free ride for you. Suck it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Face reality: You're going to have to WORK FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. Get over it. No free ride for you. Suck it up.
This is a total non-sequitur (it's also wrong, I can retire fairly comfortably right now). How is it linked with Conservatism?
Throughout the US history Conservatives have been consistently on the side of oppression and ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course a UBI that isn't enough to live on without also having a job isn't really UBI, especially if you have to pay for health insurance that alone costs several times what the UBI provides. If it's just a little bonus check that doesn't allow you to quit your job (..)
Better yet, in between:
UBI = a roof over your head, food on the table, basic healthcare, utility bills paid, some clothes on your back, and a bicycle or bus ticket.
Job = a nicer roof over your head, luxury food items, wine + eating out at restaurants, more extensive healthcare coverage, $100/month glass fibre internet + Netflix, nicer clothes, 2 cars, gaming rig, the latest iPhone, and 3 holiday trips abroad each year.
The 1st part need not be that expensive. At least affordable enough that it could b
Re: (Score:2)
I see it more like this:
No UBI = Not participating in the economy. Living off couches of others. Surviving based on charity, but not much else.
UBI = Participating in the economy. A roof over your head, food on the table, basic healthcare, utility bills paid, some clothes on your back, and a bicycle or bus ticket. All of these things pay other people, generating the taxable income needed for UBI.
Job = A nicer roof over your head, luxury food items, wine + eating out at restaurants, more extensive healthcare
Re: (Score:2)
I think you hit it - UBI would be nothing more than Unemployment. Great benefits would be not having to file, not having it run out, not having to check in anywhere and show real or made up efforts to find a job, etc.
Get the UBI check on the first, paid it back and more in taxes before that month ends. Except when you aren't paying taxes - get fired - or quit! Yes, this covers that case also - you are being abused at work, asked to do something illegal or morally repugnant to you (or others), etc. Takes
It better (Score:2)
Re:It better (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah, I always hear that "We can't close all bars, 2A folks will stop that!" "We can't make people wear masks, 2A folks will object!" Yeah, a few will object, and everyone will see them as they really are: whiny entitled idiots in line at CostCo.
What's funny is that the theoretical reason for 2A is to stop the government when it starts attacking and killing citizens. But those same folk had no complaints when troops attacked non-violent protesters in DC so Trump could get a photo op. They have no complaints when federal agents are arresting protesters in Portland (ignoring the objections of the state and local officials, "states rights" is another lie). The government does literally (and I mean "literally") the exact claimed reason for the 2A and many gun owners are like "nope, seems fine to me, I love authoritarianism as long as it's directed at other people. Which makes me a patriot!"
I really want to respect other opinions, but some people make that very very hard.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see the 2A guys show up to a BLM protest and keep the cops a respectful distance away. You know, like a proper militia, there to protect the people from the government.
Re: (Score:1)
(ignoring the objections of the state and local officials, "states rights" is another lie). The government does literally (and I mean "literally") the exact claimed reason for the 2A and many gun owners are like "nope, seems fine to me, I love authoritarianism as long as it's directed at other people. Which makes me a patriot!"
There was a perfect example of that not long after the election. An American woman who is married to a Mexican man without legal immigration status. He was caught in one of Trump's ICE raids and deported. Reporters interviewed her and when it came out that she was a fairly ardent Trump supporter, they asked the obvious question about why she voted for someone so vocal about deporting illegal immigrants when her own husband was one. I'm paraphrasing from memory of course but the response was pretty much
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! Could you please stop being so selfish for a single moment and think about your fellow human? We here in Europe are actually waiting for this! Don't spoil our fun!
If you really wanted to do something.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you really wanted to use the power of government to control the distribution of wealth this way...simply prohibit anyone with a net worth of more than $5M from holding any position in any company or any government anywhere.
Once you reach that threshold, you're stuck increasing your wealth through investments and royalties. You can't work, can't consult, can't advise, in exchange for any compensation whatsoever. You have to make way for someone else to take those jobs. Announce today, effective in 5 years so replacement plans can be put into place.
Good luck, and back the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
What a laughably dumb idea, the government already is in the pockets of large corporations and the wealthiest. You wouldn't prevent or change anything that way.
Re: If you really wanted to do something.... (Score:1)
Uh...the point of the proposal was not to keep the elite from controlling the govt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then go look at an Indian Reservation.
-jcr
So? Please explain your logical process that sees drunken natives as evidence for economic policy in a California valley town .
I could use a laugh.
Re: (Score:1)
You have a point there. Drunken Indians only ruin their own reservations. Californians ruin the whole country.
No, we don't (Score:2)
"This country has a history of finding ways to pay for things that we say matter."
No, we don't. We pay for them, and then borrow money to pay for it, because we are stupid and lack any ability to delay gratification.
Note that we are - quite literally - the wealthiest society that has ever existed in human history, and yet we still borrow 1/4-1/5 of our annual spending, because we STILL can't afford everything we want.
Money at the bottom circulates- at the top lost (Score:1)
If you give $500 to a person who is poor, it's all going to be spent and circulate thru the economy a half dozen or more times creating a lot of economic activity.
If you give $500 to a wealthy person- it will vanish- most likely into some kind of bonds which require the rest of the population to pay higher prices or higher taxes.
If you want to protect the economy, give aid at the bottom. You will probably get every penny of the money back in taxes on the economic activity it generates.
Re: (Score:2)
I like this observation by Will Rogers, appropriate to your post...
(Talking about Hoover): "But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands." ...and, I found this, appropriate to the topic...
"The more that learn to read the less learn how to make a living. That's one thing about a little education. It spoils you for actual work. The more you know t
We'll see legalized human hunting... (Score:1)
No more minimum wage (Score:1)
Basic income means you have to eliminate the minimum wage. There is no need for "a living wage" with basic income. Minimum was was never meant to be a living wage in the first place. It's what you pay the kid that is in high school and knows nothing. This is a way for them to get experience.